Adam Vaughan

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear that because during the by-election the NDP candidate who I ran against said that the New Democrats would never support any pipelines. Which is it? Is it no pipelines or is all of this to go by rail? What is the position of the NDP? I am trying to get an answer on that one.

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the current fund for rail underpasses is $10 million a year, which is an eighth of the cost of a typical underpass. The reason municipalities are not subscribing is that they do not have the other $70 million to build.

Under questioning, the minister answered that the municipalities could use the new build Canada infrastructure fund, which, as we know, has been cut down to $200 million this year. It is back-end loaded to ten years from now, which means that we have to wait ten years for rail safety. That is not appropriate.

The provinces quite often see this as a federal responsibility, and they do not see a role for partnering. If the government was serious about rail safety, municipal infrastructure, and building an economy right across the country, those dollars would not be so small, the payout times would not be so staggered, and the commitment to municipalities would not be just a moral commitment; it would be a real commitment that delivered real dollars for infrastructure.

One of the reasons it is so critical that we change the government is that we need to change those policies.

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that there are many people dreaming of Trudeau these days, and that is clearly reflected in the polls. Some people's dream is another party's nightmare, quite clearly.

The area I am talking about where there has been investment in rail and a multiplying of the number of tracks—doubling was the phrase the member used—is the Quebec-Toronto-Windsor corridor. In that area, Unifor has identified and clearly shown that adding additional rail capacity would create safety and better commute times for both regional and national companies. That is one of the areas I think we need to explore. You are asking for particular policies. You will get those.

In terms of oversight, we want more oversight and more effective oversight. We certainly want the money that is currently budgeted to be spent.

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of rail safety is paramount to the riding I represent. Both the southern boundary and northern boundary of the riding are defined by some of the busiest track in Canada.

The south end, which used to be an industrial zone, is now lived in by thousands of people, and thousands more within the next few years. It has a largely commuter rail system. VIA Rail and the regional GO Transit move through the corridor of downtown Toronto. In the north, a single pairing of rail lines moves along Dupont Street through central downtown Toronto. This is the same line that the Lac-Mégantic trains travelled through Toronto on. They are also the same lines on which, 30 or 40 years ago, the Mississauga trains that derailed and caused one of the largest civilian evacuations in the history of this country passed through this section of downtown Toronto.

As a former city councillor, we were always dealing with the challenges of these rail lines in terms of the zoning that they created, but also in terms of trying to moderate speeds and get a handle on the dangerous goods that are travelling on these rail lines.

The half dozen derailments in Ontario, two in Gogama and others, would also have travelled through some of the most densely populated parts of Canada. We know from one of the derailments that it was just a matter of time before the fractured wheel would crack, splinter and cause a derailment. As I said, that could have happened in the heart of downtown Toronto. That is not to say that wherever it happened would not have been a tragedy, but the cost, population and scope of the damage could have been phenomenal.

We have been tracking this issue very closely in the local neighbourhoods and there are a few things that come to mind. One of them is this notion of the zoning.

We heard at committee last week a Conservative member talk about trying to sterilize 300 metres on either side of the tracks right across the country as a way of protecting populations. This is absurd, as 300 metres would have meant the SkyDome could not have been built, the CN Tower would not have been built and even the Royal York would have been barred from redevelopment. Also, the cost of sterilizing that land would be in the trillions of dollars. However, this is what happens when one thinks off the back of an envelope in a committee. It scares one to think what might be happening in cabinet right now as we speak.

The zoning that has been put in place is about crash barriers. However, the zoning was put in place years ago when there were smaller trains with far less volatile chemicals travelling through this part of the country.

It is one thing, with those speed limits and size of trains, to build a 30-metre crash wall, reinforce it with engineering, push residential zoning away from the area and zone it as industrial. However, when we triple and quadruple the size of the trains, increase the speed of those trains and reclassify volatile goods so that we can increase those speeds, a crash barrier will simply become a containment for a blast, and that blast would be extraordinary, especially in a dense urban area, especially with 30-metre blast walls containing the explosion. We know about volatile chemicals when they explode in that circumstance: the containment actually increases the volatility and the damage would be extraordinary. Therefore, getting it right is fundamentally important.

My question to the Minister of Transport is germane to this, because that same line travels through downtown Toronto with level crossings. In one particular spot near the Dupont junction area, there is a public school right next to the level crossing. If a school bus, God forbid, stalled on the track or a traffic jam backed traffic up, and it happens, a freight train and a school bus could come into contact.

My question to the Minister of Transport is: What kind of money is there from the federal government to start changing these level crossings?

The answer to that is $10 million a year. However, $10 million a year does not pay one-eighth of the cost of changing those level crossings to underground bypasses, which is the norm across downtown Toronto. This means that there is not any money there, because there are about 5,000 of these level crossings identified as being dangerous across the country. Yet, we put $10 million a year on the table, as a country, to try and modify and modernize our rail capacity as we load more and more and longer and longer trains into these areas. Something has to happen.

At the same time, the rail companies are not securing the corridor. We heard from one of the presidents in Montreal at the board of trade a few weeks past saying that terrorism is now a concern. If those volatile chemicals that are travelling through Lac-Mégantic and Mississauga are travelling through Toronto, one would think the rail corridor would be secure.

I can show, next to a liquor store in downtown Toronto, where the fence has been pulled apart so many times they do not even bother putting it back up. We can see the path that has been beaten in the snow and in the soil, across the train tracks. It is extraordinarily dangerous.

When we try to get information as a city on what the actual speeds of these trains are, what the speed limits should be in a dense urban area, when we try to re-calibrate that for the volatility, size and weight of the trains passing through, when we try to get that information, we are told we cannot have it.

We can get the information after the fact now. We can get disclosure after the fact. However, when an emergency is under way, they have to call while the trucks are on the way. Trying to build a rail corridor in advance for the volatility, that information is seen as proprietary and as a result cities do not have it.

The transport minister is mistaken when she says the FCM is satisfied with this bill and these steps, because the FCM is looking for more information. One of the reasons is not because of fire departments like the one we have in Toronto, it is that all along the rail corridors across this country most of the fire departments are made up of volunteer firefighters. They have neither the training nor the equipment, nor the advance knowledge nor the capacity to get the advance knowledge as they race to some of these areas.

Advance notification and co-operation with FCM is missing from this bill and it needs to be in it.

We also know that there is virtually no monitoring. When we try to find out what the speeds of the trains are, and we ask, we are met with a blank stare. It has gotten to the point where we are almost putting police officers with radar guns by the tracks to try to figure out if they are in compliance with their own rules and regulations. That has to change. Posted speed limits and community knowledge about this have to become the norm. Instead, it is still hidden behind this veil of railway secrecy which predates the arrival of many of the municipal codes that govern the exact issue we are talking about here.

We also know that the real safety solution for this is one that pushes the issue into another realm of debate. Solutions include shorter trains, more highly regulated chemicals on those trains, perhaps transporting the diesel and the highly volatile chemicals only in the new and improved rail cars, and until that happens much lower speed limits being imposed. There are all sorts of solutions waiting to be put into place.

Every time a solution is layered on the rail companies, what is built is pressure for a new pipeline. During the by-election that I was elected in, the NDP was claiming it did not support any pipelines in Canada, including Canada east. It said it wanted everything moved by rail. It became very apparent to the voters in the riding that I represent that if everything is not put on rail, it ends up in pipelines; if it is not in pipelines, it is on rail.

There has to be a decision one way or the other, but to be against both is not a solution. The chemicals and oil are going to get to market, and we have to manage them better. There has to be a decision based on evidence and safety, with proper enforcement and standards that make a solution possible.

Pumping it all through Toronto on rail cars, then not enforcing rail safety, then not maintaining the lines, then not monitoring the speeds, and then not doing proper safety inspections, and then not giving municipalities the money they need to build the infrastructure to make this happen is a recipe for disaster. We have seen tragic disasters in smaller communities. It is a matter of time, unfortunately, and if we do not take action that we are going to see it in a larger community. That has to change. We have to get on that issue right away.

While this bill takes some small steps forward, and we will be supporting those small steps forward, there is much more that needs to be done. That is the campaign that residents in the riding I represent are starting to lead.

The other issue is this: the notion of shunting cargo and freight trains to the side tracks while passenger trains whip through at high speed appears to be good transportation policy vis-à-vis getting commuters from one city to the next or from one part of the region to the next. The trouble with that is that these large trains do not move very quickly when they do move and have to take the side tracks.

The act of zipping across lines and moving to side tracks creates the volatility and the risk. If there is constant moving of volatile freight from line to line to line to allow passenger trains to go through straight and fast, that actually accelerates and amplifies the possibility of a risk. I think that is the question we are trying to get at when we are talking to our NDP colleagues about their priority of passenger rail over freight rail.

We have to do what is right for freight. The real solution is not prioritizing one over the other. The real solution is building more track. That is what Unifor has been asking for. That is what this Liberal Party has been asking for. That is the actual solution, to invest in the infrastructure, not trying to make do with the existing circumstance and just hoping that the decision made does not end up in a disaster.

It is about taking the tough steps to understand that these chemicals and materials that are cargo have to get through some dense urban areas. The choice is pipeline versus rail, in some cases. The other choice is freight over passenger to maintain safety. If we do all of that correctly, engage communities and municipalities, and fund municipalities properly, we can end up with a transportation system that works, that is safe, that is modern, and that does not require monitoring the fear as much as monitoring the freight.

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member with great interest. However, I am also aware that the policy of the member's party is to put a priority on passenger rail over that of freight, particularly in southern Ontario. In other words, freight trains would be pushed to the side as VIA Rail passenger trains pass through and then the cargo trains would be allowed to continue.

With the high volatility of the cargo and the switching of tracks being one of the prime drivers behind derailments, is the NDP considering re-evaluating its policy of putting VIA Rail on a priority basis and cargo trains having to shunt back and forth between side rails as they move through dense urban areas?

[Safe and Accountable Rail Act, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that concerns a number of the residents in the riding that I represent, and in fact all of the downtown residents, is the level crossings. In a dense urban area where many of these trains travel, including the train from Lac-Mégantic which came through the downtown, level crossings are still the defining characteristic of rail crossings in Toronto and across the country. There are thousands of them.

My understanding is that there is a budget of only $10 million a year to transition the level crossings into rail underpasses or overpasses. Is the government considering increasing the funds available to cities and municipalities to make the rail lines safer as it brings in stronger safety regulations?

[Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource Development, March 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the private member's motion. It is long overdue.

The real issue is, why is it even needed? One would think that with the Supreme Court ruling the government would understand that consultation with first nations was not simply a courtesy or something that might be good to do but in fact an obligation under the treaties. It has been proven time and time again that not only is it a good idea to consult with first nations, it is one of the ways to get projects moving more quickly. For a government so intent on getting resources to market and so intent on getting resources out of the ground, one would think that reaching for better practices would not be something that the opposition would have to compel it to do, it would simply adopt the idea and move forward. One would think it would listen to the Supreme Court and move forward.

I listened to the previous speaker talk about the exhaustive process that is under way in terms of processing these applications. What has actually happened is the processes have been exhausted. They have been retired. They have been gotten rid of. The federal environmental assessment in particular has been reduced to such a telescoped and shortened process that it is virtually laughed at by cities, first nations and environmentalists. It is even laughed at by the proponents because they know how simple it is to clear a hurdle. That is why these projects so often end up in court.

We have a project, not a resource extraction project but a proposal from a federal agency in Toronto that is going through an environmental assessment right now. The proponents get asked, “Is this a good idea?” and if they answer “yes”, it is done. It is a project that has been developed on the lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit. Have they ever been consulted about it? No, they have not, not once. They sit back in opposition to the project waiting for the environmental assessment to be completed because that is the day they march off to court and say, “You forgot to consult with us”.

It is critical for a modern economy to move forward in concert with its partners. Any mayor in our country worth his or her salt knows that when municipal partners are not included in the planning of infrastructure or economic development or federal programs, when city councils and mayors are not included, they end up designing programs badly that do not land or work in the cities of choice, effectively. They end up in front of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities at its federal conference held once a year being screamed at by hundreds of mayors from across the country.

We are a confederation. Our Constitution implies collaboration. It rewards collaboration. Our economy moves forward more quickly with collaboration. Instead, what we get is a government that, when it cannot rule out collaboration and act unilaterally, refuses to meet with other levels of government, including first nations, but also the provinces and the municipalities. As a result, private members' bills are required just to force the government into a conversation. That is ludicrous in this day and age.

I would be impressed if the government opposite, in an act of collaboration looked across the aisle, looked to this private member's bill and took a lead. It would allow it to respect rulings from the Supreme Court and respect treaties that all of our ancestors have signed and all of us are governed by. It would allow it to work with provinces in a particular municipality in co-operation and we could start to build a country instead of simply building arguments.

The government continually looks for the battleground instead of the common ground. It talks about being a government that is embracing the new economy. There is not a private sector company out there that looks to go around creating fights with people in order to make progress in this modern economy. In fact, what we see is private sector companies doing the consultation in spite of being told by the federal government they do not need to, because even the private sector understands that collaboration is far less costly than being tied up in courts and in front of regulatory bodies.

We would hope that the government would learn from the lesson that is being offered here and the legislation that is being tabled here, would stop its knee-jerk reaction to opposing it and start looking at the benefits of working together with Canadians, whether they come from first nations communities, municipalities, provinces or from other political parties. There is no monopoly on good ideas in our country. Ideology alone will not get the problem solved.

Members of this government, this Parliament, need to learn how to work together. This bill is an excellent opportunity to show the country that the last 10 years was a mistake and the future is a better one.

[The Economy, March 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, their budgets are so horrible, maybe we are better off without one.

However, Canadian cities do not get that choice. They have to present their budgets and they have done it again on time, and, something the current government has not done, their budgets are actually balanced. They do not get to play hide-and-seek like the Minister of Finance.

They also do not get something else from the current government: infrastructure money. Because the budget has not been presented, these cities did not get money this year and they did not get money last year. That is no money for Vancouver, for Calgary, for Winnipeg, for Toronto, for Montreal, for Halifax. That is two years now with nothing.

So Ollie, Ollie, umphrey, can the Minister of Finance come out from hiding under his desk? Can he—

[Infrastructure, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the private sector that is being fed false hope by the government, the public sector is also being dished out some pretty empty rhetoric as well. Let us be clear. It is boasting about a plan that will not fund cities for 10 years, does not build housing today, will not fix a bridge tomorrow and certainly will not solve gridlock anytime soon.

The current government's so-called action plan is actually an inaction plan. This week it is the mayor of Calgary who is pleading with Ottawa to cut out the fake cheques and cut a real cheque to get infrastructure built.

When will the Minister of Finance come out from under his desk, wherever he is, and draw up a budget, fund cities, and get real Canadians working on real projects and real cities now?

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, March 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with a crime and punishment agenda is that it requires crime and only responds with punishment. I would be interested in the member's comments on the notion that the most prevalent cohort of child sexual offenders are people who are offended themselves. In other words, only criminalizing and only punishing attacks victims themselves.

I would like to know what the member's thoughts are on how that relates to preventive strategies as being a way of eliminating this horrible blight altogether.